The Manchester Free Press

Sunday • March 11 • 2018

Vol.X • No.X

Manchester, N.H.

Syndicate content
Ruminations of a New Hampshire Republican with decidedly libertarian leanings
Updated: 3 weeks 6 days ago

The Democrats Respond To Trump's SOTU

Wed, 2018-01-31 21:22 +0000

How fitting that it was a Kennedy who delivered the Democrats' response to President Trump's State of the Union address.  Real Clear Politics billed it this way:

"Representative Joseph P. Kennedy III, scion of one of America’s top political dynasties, is speaking after President Trump’s State of the Union address."

Last night the latest Kennedy aristocrat to burst onto the national scene launched into a diatribe remarkable for being so transparently dishonest, vicious, spiteful, and hypocritical. One straw man after another bit the dust as the photogenic Kennedy sought to establish himself as the new face of the same old Democratic party.  Good luck with that. 

Democrats may be looking to Joe Kennedy III to follow in the footsteps of Barack Obama whose breakout speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention inspired the nation and led to his election to the presidency only four years later.  Yet their speeches were not that alike.  Obama's held out the promise of unity, false promise that it was.  Funny that he noted there were those who would divide Americans, and then later we find that he, Obama, would be the divider.

"Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America."

Kennedy on the other hand takes division as the given.  The good, represented by himself and like minded aristocrats, must defeat the Trump-inspired racist rabble.

"This administration isn’t just targeting the laws that protect us – they are targeting the very idea that we are all worthy of protection.
For them, dignity isn’t something you’re born with but something you measure.

By your net worth, your celebrity, your headlines, your crowd size.

Not to mention, the gender of your spouse. The country of your birth. The color of your skin. The God of your prayers.

Their record is a rebuke of our highest American ideal: the belief that we are all worthy, we are all equal and we all count. In the eyes of our law and our leaders, our God and our government.

That is the American promise."

According the Joe Kennedy III, we are all worthy, equal, and we all count in the eyes of our law, our leaders, our God, and government.  Except somehow I don't think Hillary, or James Comey, or Loretta Lynch, or even Kennedy himself believe any of it.  In light of the sham investigation that held Hillary blameless for ignoring laws that sent others to jail, how could they believe it?  The law was certainly not intended to apply to Joe's great uncle Ted.  Ted Kennedy, you may recall, drove his car off a bridge and into a Chappaquiddick Island tidal channel with Mary Jo Kopechne in it.  He saved his own skin, but then didn't bother to report the accident for nine hours.  And he didn't bother to save Mary Joe.  She drowned, trapped in his car underwater.

Yes, Joe's speech was dishonest, vicious, and spiteful, but Joe Kennedy III was also being really dumb.  Really dumb.  Dumb like Hillary with her deplorables comment.  Kennedy had this to say about our year of strong economic growth and optimism:

"We see an economy that makes stocks soar, investor portfolios bulge and corporate profits climb but fails to give workers their fair share of the reward.
A government that struggles to keep itself open.

Russia knee-deep in our democracy.

An all-out war on environmental protection.

A Justice Department rolling back civil rights by the day.

Hatred and supremacy proudly marching in our streets."

The Democrats have painted themselves into a corner with identity politics.  Americans tend to reject policies that they see as encroachments on their freedoms, yet that's what the Democrats are constantly trying to sell to the voters.  Democrats have no issues that are not transparently about increasing their own power.  Democrats support labor unions and mandatory unionization wherever possible because union dues become party contributions.  Democrats support federal regulations on anything and everything because it provides an army of federal employees whose jobs depend on the Democrat vision of an ever expanding government, and because regulations can be used as weapons against political opponents.  Democrats support open borders and illegal immigration because Democrats depend on a stream of low income, unskilled workers who are more likely to become future Democratic voters.  Democrats oppose any form of voter ID validation because they make use of voter fraud in tight elections.

Most Americans do not belong to labor unions and many of those that do would prefer not to have mandatory dues automatically deducted from their pay.  Most Americans oppose unnecessary regulation and would prefer, if not smaller government, at least government that is efficient and cost effective.  Most Americans oppose illegal immigration.  Most Americans would like vote tallies to reflect an accurate count of legally cast ballots by eligible voters.  Democrats have decided that to win on these issues they have to convince voters that opposition is racist or cruel.

That leaves little else for Democrats to campaign on but the evil, the racism, the homophobia of whoever opposes them.  At the moment that happens to be Republicans, but the club could grow to include independents.  To use Hillary's words opponents are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it."  And just as Hillary miscalculated, Joe Kennedy III is not likely to shame anybody into anything.  Instead he will create even greater resentment in the hearts of Americans to those moralizing, pretentious progressives who want only to dictate to the rest of us.  Good luck, Joe.

Categories: Blogs, United States

Are We Looking at a Standoff?

Sun, 2017-12-03 03:19 +0000

Yesterday Michael Flynn entered a guilty plea to the charge of lying to the FBI about two meetings he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December of 2016.  According to reports Flynn is now cooperating in the investigation of alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia as it allegedly attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.  The stock market took a dive when Brian Ross of ABC News reported that candidate Donald Trump had instructed Flynn to reach out to Russian officials.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average which was hitting record highs suddenly dropped 350 points. 

Meanwhile euphoria gripped the fever swamps of the left.  Mueller had his "smoking gun."  With Flynn apparently poised to testify that Trump ordered him to make contact with the Russians when he was a candidate, Mueller had proof that Trump colluded with Russians to rig the U.S. presidential election.  Then came ABC's correction.

Ross issued a “clarification” to his report on ABC “World Tonight,” hours after the initial bombshell allegation about pre-election Russia contacts was made on air.

“A clarification tonight on something one of Flynn’s confidants told us and we reported earlier today,” Ross told ABC “World Tonight” host David Muir.

“He said the president had asked Flynn to contact Russia during the campaign. He’s now clarifying that, saying, according to Flynn, candidate Trump asked him during the campaign to find ways to repair relations with Russia and other world hot spots. And then after the election, the president-elect asked him to contact Russia on issues including working together to fight ISIS.”

The stock market began to rebound even before Ross's correction was announced, probably buoyed by the anticipated Senate tax reform vote.  By market close the Dow had recovered to where it was only 40 points down from its previous close, still well above the 24,000 barrier it had broken through on the day before.  Lefty dreams of impeachment began to fade.  There's still nothing about contacts between Trump's transition team and foreign leaders that was anything but the normal practice for an incoming administration.

But with Flynn's guilty plea we finally have a crime related to the 2016 elections.  Up to now the only known illegality is the leaking of unmasked names of Trump campaign personnel who were under surveillance by the Obama administration.  There may be other illegalities and in my opinion there probably are, like the surveillance itself, but the leaking of unmasked names are the only actions we know of with a certainty that are against the law.

Also since Flynn entered his plea, there's been a lot of talk about all the leverage Special Counsel Robert Mueller might now have for getting Flynn to incriminate President Trump.  With Mueller breathing down his neck, you get the sense that all the pressure is on Trump, but that may not be quite true.  The saying goes, if you take a shot at the king, you better kill him, so what might Mueller have to worry about if he takes his shot? 

Answer:  Uranium One.  

An FBI investigation that began prior to 2010 had accumulated substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in a scheme of bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering that was intended to expand Russia's atomic energy business inside the United States.  Documentary evidence showed that President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation received millions of dollars during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened ... on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”

In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.

So how would all of this be a problem for Mueller?  Answer:  Robert Mueller was head of the FBI when the investigation began in 2009.  And, oddly enough, James Comey was FBI director when it ended in 2015.  

The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.

When Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from investigations of all things related to Russia, his deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel.  It was Andrew McCabe's wife, you may recall, who received more than a half million dollar campaign contribution from now Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe for her Virginia state Senate campaign.  Thicker than thieves.

To sum up the Uranium One scandal, a lot of money changed hands, Russia got uranium, the Clintons got millions, the Clinton Foundation got hundreds of millions, and the investigating team, that included Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, and James Comey, were apparently looking the other way while it all went down.  Inquiring minds are beginning to ask questions.

So, what will Robert Mueller do?  Can he keep himself out of the crosshairs when Congress begins to demand to know how the Uranium One deal really went down?  What does Robert Mueller know about Uranium One?  Will he help himself by going hard after President Trump, or somebody in his family like Jared Kushner?  

Or would he be better off looking into the origins and financing of the Steele Dossier?  That would turn his focus on the Democrats and Hillary Clinton, since it's been reported that Hillary and the DNC paid for the dossier, transactions that sent Clinton campaign and DNC money through Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to "Russian sources."  And once his attention turns to Hillary's indirect collusion with the Russians, would his investigation then be expanded to include the Clinton Foundation.

Trump and Mueller may be at something of a standoff.  Trump can't fire Mueller, and Mueller doesn't seem to have anything on Trump.  So far Mueller's investigation looks like a rerun of the Scooter Libby persecution.  Is Michael Flynn playing the Scooter Libby role in Robert Mueller's shot at bringing Trump down?  And what happens if his shot doesn't kill the king?

Categories: Blogs, United States

Uranium One

Wed, 2017-11-22 14:29 +0000

The Uranium One scandal is back in the news, not that it was ever really gone.  According to The Hill, an undercover FBI informant who has gathered extensive evidence of corruption surrounding Russia's purchase of Uranium One and its U.S. assets, will soon testify before Congress.  The Hill has reviewed the documents.

An FBI informant gathered extensive evidence during his six years undercover about a Russian plot to corner the American uranium market, ranging from corruption inside a U.S. nuclear transport company to Obama administration approvals that let Moscow buy and sell more atomic fuels, according to more than 5,000 pages of documents from the counterintelligence investigation.

The memos, reviewed by The Hill, conflict with statements made by Justice Department officials in recent days that informant William Campbell’s prior work won’t shed much light on the U.S. government’s controversial decision in 2010 to approve Russia’s purchase of the Uranium One mining company and its substantial U.S. assets.

Campbell documented for his FBI handlers the first illegal activity by Russians nuclear industry officials in fall 2009, nearly an entire year before the Russian state-owned Rosatom nuclear firm won Obama administration approval for the Uranium One deal, the memos show.

The FBI and the DOJ have been less than cooperative with congressional investigations, seeking to prevent Congress from hearing testimony from its informant.  One gets the picture that there was a coordinated effort by Deep State officials and Clinton friendly media to kill the story and block the evidence from coming out.

Uranium One was a large enough concern for the informant that he confronted one of his FBI handlers after learning the CFIUS had approved the sale and that the U.S. had given Mikerin a work visa despite the extensive evidence of his criminal activity, the source said.

The agent responded back to the informant with a comment suggesting “politics” was involved, the source familiar with Campbell’s planned testimony said.

Justice officials said federal prosecutors have no records that Campbell or his lawyer made any allegations about the Uranium One deal during his debriefings in the criminal case that started in 2013, but acknowledged he collected evidence about the mining deal during the FBI counterintelligence investigation that preceded it.

In recent days, news media including The Washington Post and Fox News anchor Shepard Smith have inaccurately reported another element of the story: that Uranium One never exported its American uranium because the Obama administration did not allow it.

However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized Uranium One to export through a third party tons of uranium to Canada for enrichment processing, and some of that product ended up in Europe, NRC documents state.

A Uranium One executive acknowledged to The Hill that 25 percent of the uranium it shipped to Canada under the third-party export license ended up with either European or Asian customers through what it known in the nuclear business as “book transfers.” 

The Uranium One scandal has been around for more than a year.  It was first revealed by Peter Schweizer in Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, which was released in July of 2016.  A few months later Andrew McCarthy reported on it in a National Review article entitled Clinton’s State Department: A RICO Enterprise.

In a nutshell, in 2005, under the guise of addressing the incidence of HIV/AIDS in Kazakhstan (where the disease is nearly nonexistent), Bill Clinton helped his Canadian billionaire pal Frank Giustra to convince the ruling despot, Nursultan Nazarbayev (an infamous torturer and human-rights violator), to grant coveted uranium-mining rights to Giustra’s company, Ur-Asia Energy (notwithstanding that it had no background in the highly competitive uranium business). Uranium is a key component of nuclear power, from which the United States derives 20 percent of its total electrical power.

In the months that followed, Giustra gave an astonishing $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and pledged $100 million more. With the Kazakh rights secured, Ur-Asia was able to expand its holdings and attract new investors, like Ian Telfer, who also donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Ur-Asia merged with Uranium One, a South African company, in a $3.5 billion deal — with Telfer becoming Uranium One’s chairman. The new company proceeded to buy up major uranium assets in the United States.

Documentation provided by Campbell and his testimony will soon be in front of Congress.  Will the Clinton Crime Family be finally brought to justice?  Time will tell, but it's an encouraging sign to see Bill's liberal allies, who once gave him a pass for his sexual harrassment and abuse, now backing away. 

Categories: Blogs, United States

Rats Moving Towards the Portholes?

Thu, 2017-11-02 20:55 +0000

There is an emerging picture that shows a Special Prosecutor who might just be taking very special care to avoid appearances of a Republican driven witch hunt.  Although Robert Mueller was ostensibly appointed to investigate Trump campaign connections to Russia, it's the Democratic presidential campaign that may be the one to come under fire from the Justice Department.  This particular suspicion is not new for me, though at times it has seemed quite far fetched.  It begins to seem less far fetched in light of an essay by Donna Brazile in today's Politico.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC tells of Brazile's discovery that Hillary Clinton and the DNC may not have behaved in an entirely ethical manner in their treatment of Bernie Sanders during the 2016 Democratic primaries.   Brazile writes:

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.

This is an astonishing admission, given Brazile's well known loyalty to the Clintons and the Democratic party.  So, why does she bare her soul at this particular moment.  The answer may lie in the tenuous, verging on nonexistent link between the Trump campaign and indictments just handed down by Robert Mueller.

Greg Jarrett of Fox News reminds us today that no one in the Trump campaign has committed the crime of colluding with Russia.  There is a good reason to believe this.  "Collusion" is not a crime. 

It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that.  They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes.

In fact, the indictments against Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, are all related to tax evasion, money laundering, and failure to register as a foreign agent, and all of those alleged misdeeds occurred before Manafort was connected to the Trump campaign.   As to the guilty plea by George Papadopoulos, he pled to a single charge of making false statements to the FBI, in which he misstated certain sequences of events around his attempts to arrange a Trump campaign meeting with Russians that never occurred.

But, as Greg Jarrett reports, there is evidence of other crimes committed by a political campaign in the 2016 presidential election.

It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.” The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns. It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121). This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.

Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained. In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

It is, perhaps, telling that today is the day that Politico carries an article by Donna Brazile lamenting a moral lapse where Hillary and the DNC stacked the deck against Bernie Sanders?  Brazile seems such an unlikely candidate for raising questions of integrity.  Back in November of 2016, Brazile was not in the least bit apologetic about helping Hillary beat out Bernie for the Democratic presidential nomination, even though CNN dropped her as contributor after they found she had leaked debate questions to Hillary ahead of a primary debate.

Donna Brazile, the interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, is not only refusing to apologize for giving debate questions to candidate Hillary Clinton. She's also saying she would do it again if given the opportunity.

“My conscience — as an activist, a strategist — is very clear,” she said in an interview with talk-radio host Joe Madison that aired on Monday.


The far-from-contrite political veteran also recycled her discredited claims that the hacked emails that exposed her perfidy against presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders were somehow altered by Russian intelligence agents.

A year has gone by.  The Hillary presidency, almost universally expected to be a slam dunk as the election returns began to come in, evaporated overnight.  And now today Brazile tells us about her emotional apology to Bernie.  She made it, she said, right after her alleged search for evidence of DNC corruption did not come up empty.

I had to keep my promise to Bernie. I was in agony as I dialed him. Keeping this secret was against everything that I stood for, all that I valued as a woman and as a public servant.

“Hello, senator. I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,” I said. “But I will not kill the patient.”


I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election.

Last year Brazile had no regrets after she had cheated for Hillary in the debates.  She said she would do it all again.  But this year she tells us Hillary was a cancer, or Hillary's actions were a cancer, and that she knew it before the election.  Donna Brazile is one of the Democratic party's most faithful.  She is a nationally prominent Democratic activist, and she has been for decades.  She was an adviser to Bill Clinton in his presidential campaigns of 1992 and 1996.  Twice she was interim head of the Democratic National Committee.

But today she throws Hillary under the bus, and in the process throws Debbie Wasserman-Schultz under with her.  Both of them might soon be in potentially serious legal trouble — DWS for her connections to and employment of Imran Awan, Hillary for the offenses described above by Greg Jarrett.

It has been reported that President Trump met with Robert Mueller the day before Mueller was appointed to investigate connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.  It has also been reported that Robert Mueller loaded up his team with prosecutors who have personally contributed — some rather heavily — to the Democratic party and/or  Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton.  The total amount contributed by Team Mueller is reported to be in the vicinity of $50,000.  It makes sense to me that, if any Democrats are ever to be prosecuted by the Trump Department of Justice, it had better be loyal Democrats who do the prosecuting.

Hillary is toxic and the Democratic party is deep trouble.  For Hillary to take such a smack from Donna Brazile, an activist Democrat whose party loyalty seems to outweigh her honesty, it signals, at the very least, an astounding decline in Hillary's political influence.  The Clinton crime family remains afloat, but signs are it will soon be taking on water.  Today's confession by Donna Brazile suggests that the rats are headed for the portholes.

Categories: Blogs, United States

Congressmen Press the U.S. Mint for Action on Counterfeit Gold and Silver Coins

Sat, 2017-10-28 11:22 +0000

The following article was provided by Jp Cortez, assistant director at Sound Money Defense League.


Washington, DC (October 27, 2017) -- Congressmen Alex Mooney (R-WV) and Frank Lucas (R-OK) today delivered a formal letter to the United States Mint and Secret Service, urging aggressive action on the growing problem of high-quality counterfeits of U.S. precious metals coins entering the country from China and elsewhere.

“Enclosed herewith is a 1995 1 oz. Gold American Eagle coin, carrying a face value $50 and ostensibly minted by the U.S. Mint,” Mooney and Lucas wrote.  “You are free to keep it, as it’s a worthless tungsten fake.”

As members of the House Financial Services subcommittee which oversees the U.S. Mint, Congressmen Mooney and Lucas are seeking information from the government institution responsible for the production of coinage for the United States, such as “the nature and quantity of complaints – and resulting investigations – regarding counterfeit U.S. gold, silver, and platinum coins within the last two years,” and “what anti-counterfeiting programs, if any, are in place to protect the integrity of U.S. coins minted specifically of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium.”

The congressmen request information as to whether, and to what extent, the U.S. Mint has taken proactive steps to protect the integrity of America’s minted coins, including reviewing and implementing the anti-counterfeiting measures already put in place certain foreign government and private mints.

And they seek clarification regarding the “expected roles of the Secret Service, U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement, and other federal law enforcement agencies in detecting and investigating counterfeits of U.S. coins minted of precious metals and the extent of their coordination with the U.S. Mint.”

The congressmen also raised concerns about a Secret Service decision not to investigate the origin of a counterfeit batch of Gold American Eagle coins when the matter was recently brought to its attention.

“We commend Representative Mooney and Representative Lucas for their actions in defending sound money and for beginning to exercise Congressional oversight duties in accordance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution,” said Stefan Gleason, director of the Sound Money Defense League.

“We look forward to a meaningful explanation from the U.S. Mint and the Secret Service for what appears to be a lackadaisical attitude toward protecting the only constitutional currency that is currently even produced by the federal government,” said Gleason.

A full copy of the congressional letter can be found here.

The U.S. Mint produces American Gold Eagles, Silver Eagles, and other precious metals coins.


Categories: Blogs, United States

The Manchester Free Press aims to bring together in one place everything that you need to know about what’s happening in the Free State of New Hampshire.




Our friends & allies

New Hampshire

United States

We publish links to the sites listed above in the hopes that they will be useful. The appearance of any particular site in this list does not imply that we endorse everything that the particular site advocates.